Britain - The Official Thread

[PeterJB]

Depends if Putin's gonna find a scapegoat demographic and lock all the athletes in the cupboard until the nice diplomats have gone.

 

[Touring Mars]

What country doesn't use World Cups to get their country over?

Scotland?

--


I guess it was only a matter of time until someone resorted to Godwin's Law - and (shockingly) it wasn't Boris - yet he came a very close second. FWIW, given Russia's insistence that this whole debacle is a UK plot to discredit Russia by disrupting the World Cup, making (or "completely agreeing" with) such inflammatory comments about the World Cup is extremely stupid.

Putin is a cool customer who doesn't appear to rise to the bait, but the Russians have been revelling in this opportunity to poke fun/goad the UK government at a time when diplomatic language and behaviour should be at a premium, but it would appear that officials on both sides are unable to conduct themselves with much dignity.

 

[novcze]

another strange thing coming from the UK is Count Dankula case, guy was dragged through the court and ultimately convicted of being "grossly offensive" for making a joke video for a few friends he had at that time on the Youtube (now he have 131k subscribers) ... context and intent of the joke was clearly stated in the video and ignored by the court, it was rather cheap joke, but nothing that should warrant prosecution. Didn't the UK went a bit overboard with hate crime on this one?


If you want curious analogy you can read this:
http://gawker.com/5727484/jackie-the-hitler-saluting-dog-really-pissed-off-the-nazis

 

[ExigeEvan]

another strange thing coming from the UK is Count Dankula case, guy was dragged through the court and ultimately convicted of being "grossly offensive" for making a joke video for a few friends he had at that time on the Youtube (now he have 131k subscribers) ... context and intent of the joke was clearly stated in the video and ignored by the court, it was rather cheap joke, but nothing that should warrant prosecution. Didn't the UK went a bit overboard with hate crime on this one?


If you want curious analogy you can read this:
http://gawker.com/5727484/jackie-the-hitler-saluting-dog-really-pissed-off-the-nazis

I haven't watched the whole video, but does anyone have a count of how many times he says "gas the Jews"?

The defence that he only made the video to annoy his girlfriend doesn't hold water when he posted it on the internet and on his channel.

How does that differ from making the same statement whilst walking the streets?

Like many YouTubers, he thought he could getaway with something controversial to boost his views because "it's just YouTube innit".

And for international context, there aren't specific laws in the UK relating to anti semitism or holocaust denial, unlike several europEur countries.

 

[Liquid]

He's a far right whacko who's been caught out. Maximum Pepe and all that tripe. Boo hoo.

On the other hand, he's been sent to gaol where some might feel it contravenes freedom of expression.

 

[Imari]

I haven't watched the whole video, but does anyone have a count of how many times he says "gas the Jews"?

The defence that he only made the video to annoy his girlfriend doesn't hold water when he posted it on the internet and on his channel.

How does that differ from making the same statement whilst walking the streets?

Like many YouTubers, he thought he could getaway with something controversial to boost his views because "it's just YouTube innit".

And for international context, there aren't specific laws in the UK relating to anti semitism or holocaust denial, unlike several europEur countries.

I dunno, I feel like being gaoled for making a really bad joke isn't exactly the sort of society most of us expect. There is such a thing as black humour, and when it's done well it can be very, very funny.

The difference between something like this and striding the streets yelling "gas the Jews" is intention, IMO. Teaching a dog to react with excitement to that is supposed to be funny exactly because it's something that you shouldn't be excited to hear.

I dunno, it feels like a case of people getting their snowflake panties in a bunch. There's all sorts of crazy and abusive stuff that gets pushed on Youtube (and other media for that matter), but for some reason the Holocaust is still off-limits.

 

[novcze]

On the other hand, he's been sent to gaol where some might feel it contravenes freedom of expression.

He is convicted, what sentence he get will be known in April ... do you think he deserves to be jailed (and as you imply also physically harmed)?

I dunno, I feel like being gaoled for making a really bad joke isn't exactly the sort of society most of us expect.

Exactly, it can be boiled down to freedom of speech debate. I found this opinion piece of Shappi Khorsandi which sums it up.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...peech-comedy-joke-iran-offended-a8270631.html

 

[ExigeEvan]

I dunno, I feel like being gaoled for making a really bad joke isn't exactly the sort of society most of us expect. There is such a thing as black humour, and when it's done well it can be very, very funny.

The difference between something like this and striding the streets yelling "gas the Jews" is intention, IMO. Teaching a dog to react with excitement to that is supposed to be funny exactly because it's something that you shouldn't be excited to hear.

I dunno, it feels like a case of people getting their snowflake panties in a bunch. There's all sorts of crazy and abusive stuff that gets pushed on Youtube (and other media for that matter), but for some reason the Holocaust is still off-limits.

He is convicted, what sentence he get will be known in April ... do you think he deserves to be jailed (and as you imply also physically harmed)?




Exactly, it can be boiled down to freedom of speech debate. I found this opinion piece of Shappi Khorsandi which sums it up.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...peech-comedy-joke-iran-offended-a8270631.html

.

I don't disagree with the article on the whole except I think it misses the key focus. It isn't about the pug. It isn't about a Nazi salute. It's about a man repeatedly saying "gas the Jews" under the thin pretence that it's a joke. A joke between him and his girlfriend. A private joke that he personally posted onto a public website.

If any and all hate speech can be excused because it was a private joke that was subsequently put on youtube by the perpetrator themselves or because it involved a pug then where do we go from there?

I dontd have an issue with comedians at comedy shows (paid.or unpaid) pushing the boundaries, that's real context. Private jokes on YouTube is not.

And again UK law makes no special protection of the Holocaust

 

[Famine]

Exactly, it can be boiled down to freedom of speech debate.

Not really. We don't have freedom of speech in law in the UK.

I dontd have an issue with comedians at comedy shows (paid.or unpaid) pushing the boundaries, that's real context. Private jokes on YouTube is not.

It's not exactly like YouTube is being directly broadcast onto tower blocks, or zeppelins, or beamed into our minds. YouTube is also a private place, accessible to the public, by choice and for free. YouTube is a gig for however many people click onto it.

The usual suspects who pile into people saying things they don't like, and banging on about how freedom of speech is a responsibility and you can't actually just say anything you feel like, will generally complain that an individual's words might encourage action on behalf of others (incitement) or panic (like the usual example of yelling "fire" in a theatre).

I'm not sure who's going to panic as a result of a dog doing a fake fascist salute to a command of "gas the Jews". I'm not sure who's going to be incited, or to do what, either. Are other people going to go out and gas Jews based on seeing this video? Or do fascist salutes... OMG HOLLY NO!

I take it all back.


This video was going to do literally no harm at all. It was a weird man getting a dog to do a weird trick that he thought was funny (because it was inappropriate; and let's face it, it's not far removed from Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove) and videoed it to annoy his girlfriend, then uploaded it to the world's most popular, most easily accessible (he could send her a link to show it to her on just about any internet-capable device) video storage website. Aside from perhaps YouTube deciding it was against its terms and removing it, that's where it should have ended, with about 1,000 people ever seeing it.

Then some people somewhere apparently complained about it to the police. Now he's famous, she's famous, the dog's famous, the video's famous and any message of incitement or panic the usual suspects think it carries has reached literally the entire planet, magnifying it by at least four orders. And, once again, made the terminally edgy feel like extreme fascist views are anti-establishment and cool, and suppressed everywhere they look, so becoming a theme of their idiotic sub-culture.

The weird guy is now a poster-child for them.

 

[Imari]

I don't disagree with the article on the whole except I think it misses the key focus. It isn't about the pug. It isn't about a Nazi salute. It's about a man repeatedly saying "gas the Jews" under the thin pretence that it's a joke. A joke between him and his girlfriend. A private joke that he personally posted onto a public website.

If any and all hate speech can be excused because it was a private joke that was subsequently put on youtube by the perpetrator themselves or because it involved a pug then where do we go from there?

I dontd have an issue with comedians at comedy shows (paid.or unpaid) pushing the boundaries, that's real context. Private jokes on YouTube is not.

And again UK law makes no special protection of the Holocaust

If any and all speech that could be considered hate speech is punished to the full extent, where do we go from there? Do you get locked up for using the words "gas the Jews" in the previous post? Do I get locked up for using them in this one?

Clearly there is discrimination used when judging what is legitimate use and what is hate speech. Clearly you draw the line way over to the side of anything that appears to be remotely like hate speech. Personally, I'd lean very much on the side of something having to clearly be intentional hate speech before actually deciding to remove someone's freedom. I would rather a bigot or racist walk free than lock up someone who intended no such thing. Honestly, bigotry and racism are really not that high up the scale of crimes.

And I'm afraid Youtube is just as valid a platform these days as a live comedy show or a television program. And posting random videos publically isn't unusual, and it's not unheard of for random stuff to go viral beyond anything that it's creator could have anticipated.

I'd say it's pretty clear you do have an issue with this sort of "comedy", as that's the basis of your entire argument. Or are you saying that if he'd taken the dog up on stage and done an actual performance (which would have then required intentionally presenting his views to far more people) that would somehow be better than posting it on Youtube? If it's criminal, I would have thought that it would be regardless of the medium used to present it.

It's a short video about a dog called Buddha that keeps looking around when asked if it wants to gas the Jews. I think it's even more amusing that resting pug face generally looks somewhere between alarmed and "are you serious, mate?" The pug very much does not look excited to gas some Jews. So he's gone to all this effort, and the pug is just looking at him like he's an idiot. Which seems accurate. Seriously, watch the video. There's nothing there.

If saying "gas the Jews" and "Seig Heil" for two minutes is worth a year in prison, I rather think you've all lost the plot. If that's criminal, there has to be hundreds of other people more deserving of gaol than a guy who trained a dog to react to "gas the Jews". Probably thousands.

This video is not inciting anything, it's a guy trying to be funny, failing (mostly, although there's always the part where it's so unfunny that it goes full circle and is kind of funny again), and happening to go viral because the internet is full of people looking for excuses to be offended. Spend time clamping down on the actual hate groups rather than this bollocks. Arrest the people who are actually inciting violence and hatred rather than some unfunny dude who just happens to be a bell end.

 

[ExigeEvan]

It's not exactly like YouTube is being directly broadcast onto tower blocks, or zeppelins, or beamed into our minds. YouTube is also a private place, accessible to the public, by choice and for free. YouTube is a gig for however many people click onto it.
.

If you can access it without restriction or membership then it's a public place. Fee or no fee.

This video was going to do literally no harm at all...

...Then some people somewhere apparently complained about it to the police.

And was subsequently upheld in court.

Then it literally has caused harm.

(he could send her a link to show it to her on just about any internet-capable device)

Or he could have kept it private on any number of internet apps. Like WhatsApp. Or FB messenger. Or even made the video private...

But he didn't. He personally put it in the public domain.

Now he's famous, she's famous, the dog's famous, the video's famous and any message of incitement or panic the usual suspects think it carries has reached literally the entire planet, magnifying it by at least four orders.

Oh no, the consequences of a transparent and open legal system. What shall we do?

If any and all speech that could be considered hate speech is punished to the full extent, where do we go from there? Do you get locked up for using the words "gas the Jews" in the previous post? Do I get locked up for using them in this one?

Clearly there is discrimination used when judging what is legitimate use and what is hate speech. Clearly you draw the line way over to the side of anything that appears to be remotely like hate speech. Personally, I'd lean very much on the side of something having to clearly be intentional hate speech before actually deciding to remove someone's freedom. I would rather a bigot or racist walk free than lock up someone who intended no such thing. Honestly, bigotry and racism are really not that high up the scale of crimes.

I don't draw any lines, I take each issue in context. His defence is the context that this was a joke and a private one at that. I don't accept that because one it's not private and two placing a pug in a video doesn't make it a joke.

And I'm afraid Youtube is just as valid a platform these days as a live comedy show or a television program. And posting random videos publically isn't unusual, and it's not unheard of for random stuff to go viral beyond anything that it's creator could have anticipated.

So content on YouTube should be judged in the same context as all other communications. Putting it on YouTube doesn't instantly make it comedy material either, you have to prove that if you're going to be that controversial. Just like you would if you repeated other comedy material on a loud speaker in a public place.

I'd say it's pretty clear you do have an issue with this sort of "comedy", as that's the basis of your entire argument. Or are you saying that if he'd taken the dog up on stage and done an actual performance (which would have then required intentionally presenting his views to far more people) that would somehow be better than posting it on Youtube? If it's criminal, I would have thought that it would be regardless of the medium used to present it.

I have a problem with Pug based comedy. That much I will admit.

 

[Famine]

If you can access it without restriction or membership then it's a public place. Fee or no fee.

Nope. It's a publicly accessible place - and that one, unlike free speech, does have basis in law.

It's the difference between going into a pub to where a performance is occurring, and street performers.

And was subsequently upheld in court.

Then it literally has caused harm.

What harm, to whom, where and when?

Or he could have kept it private on any number of internet apps. Like WhatsApp. Or FB messenger. Or even made the video private...

But he didn't. He personally put it in the public domain.

So his conviction is for using YouTube? Hate speech isn't hate speech if it's on WhatsApp? Sounds a bit dim and archaic.

What else is a crime in public, but not on WhatsApp?

Oh no, the consequences of a transparent and open legal system. What shall we do?

Not needlessly prosecute people would be a good starting point. The justice system has ended up taking a message it believes is harmful and needs to be suppressed and broadcasting it globally - literally the opposite of suppression.

 

[Imari]

I don't draw any lines, I take each issue in context. His defence is the context that this was a joke and a private one at that. I don't accept that because one it's not private and two placing a pug in a video doesn't make it a joke.

That's possibly the worst application of logic I've ever heard.

Since when did anyone find pug content a necessary measure for something to be considered a joke? Something is a joke if someone intended it to be a joke. You can argue that he's lying about that, but since he says it in the video that was made before this all blew up I think you'll find it difficult to find evidence to support your position.

As far as a "private" joke, you must be unaware how Youtube works. But let me use an analogy to the real world. If you're in the lunch room telling a couple of your co-workers a joke about fat people in a quiet voice and your tubby colleague happens to walk behind you, does that mean you didn't intend for it to be private? I mean, you had a reasonable expectation that nobody but the people you intended would hear you, but at the same time you didn't go lock the three of you in a soundproof closet. You used a public area and assumed that nobody else would take any interest in your quietly spoken fat joke.

So content on YouTube should be judged in the same context as all other communications. Putting it on YouTube doesn't instantly make it comedy material either, you have to prove that if you're going to be that controversial. Just like you would if you repeated other comedy material on a loud speaker in a public place.

Why do you keep saying "such and such doesn't make it comedy"? You've said it about having a pug in there, and now you're saying it about Youtube. Do you not get what makes a joke a joke?

What is it to you that identifies a joke from any other communication?

Oh no, the consequences of a transparent and open legal system. What shall we do?

Just because something is transparent and open, doesn't mean it's operating correctly. The spirit of the law would have been better served by never touching the guy at all.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Nope. It's a publicly accessible place - and that one, unlike free speech, does have basis in law.

It's the difference between going into a pub to where a performance is occurring, and street performers.

What harm, to whom, where and when?

So his conviction is for using YouTube? Hate speech isn't hate speech if it's on WhatsApp? Sounds a bit dim and archaic.

What else is a crime in public, but not on WhatsApp?

Not needlessly prosecute people would be a good starting point. The justice system has ended up taking a message it believes is harmful and needs to be suppressed and broadcasting it globally - literally the opposite of suppression.

Inserting the word 'accesible' doesn't make a difference.

“Public place” includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise ”.

Harm to the complainants, when they watched it, on a device.

No, not YouTube. Very clear difference between public and private communication.

The prosecution system hasn't broadcast the message. Awareness and distribution aren't the same thing.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Something is a joke if someone intended it to be a joke.

Scenario.

I verbally abuse you and then hit you across the head with a comedy baseball bat.

But it's just a joke right?

As far as a "private" joke, you must be unaware how Youtube works. But let me use an analogy to the real world. If you're in the lunch room telling a couple of your co-workers a joke about fat people in a quiet voice and your tubby colleague happens to walk behind you, does that mean you didn't intend for it to be private? I mean, you had a reasonable expectation that nobody but the people you intended would hear you, but at the same time you didn't go lock the three of you in a soundproof closet. You used a public area and assumed that nobody else would take any interest in your quietly spoken fat joke.

The difference is that by using a widely available and affordable encrypted direct messaging system then he could have easily kept it private.

Instead he walked into the office and yelled it to everyone but because he said it was a joke before hand it's okay.

 

[Spurgy 777]

I haven't watched the whole video, but does anyone have a count of how many times he says "gas the Jews"?

The defence that he only made the video to annoy his girlfriend doesn't hold water when he posted it on the internet and on his channel.

How does that differ from making the same statement whilst walking the streets?

Like many YouTubers, he thought he could getaway with something controversial to boost his views because "it's just YouTube innit".

And for international context, there aren't specific laws in the UK relating to anti semitism or holocaust denial, unlike several europEur countries.

I think calling him a YouTuber is a bit of a stretch and I very much doubt he did it for the views, if you actually go and look at his channel (not that you would particularly want to) before he posted the Nazi pug video he had, by some miracle, 200-300 subs and had posted 8 videos over 9 months, all of which included either his girlfriends pug or his friends. None of them are what you would expect from someone taking YouTube remotely seriously. I mean half of them are less than a minute long, do you really think someone who posts videos like this is looking for views and subscribers?



Or is it more likely that when he said he didn't care about his channel and just used it to post 🤬 that he was telling the truth?

EDIT: On a side not, by your logic this video can't be a private joke because it's public, so I would love for you to explain how it's funny to anyone other than his friends? Or again is it more likely that he just uploads videos and doesn't care who else sees them beyond his friends because he's not really expecting anyone to.

He's a far right whacko who's been caught out. Maximum Pepe and all that tripe. Boo hoo.

On the other hand, he's been sent to gaol where some might feel it contravenes freedom of expression.

So because you don't like what he says it doesn't matter than he could be sent to jail for a joke? Or should we be locking up everyone who makes a joke that someone else finds offensive?

 

[ExigeEvan]

I think calling him a YouTuber is a bit of a stretch

His Twitter handle is 'CountDankulaTV' and his description is 'professional **** poster'.

I'd say that's atleast some intent to be a YouTube 'personality'.

 

[Northstar]

Scenario.

I verbally abuse you and then hit you across the head with a comedy baseball bat.

But it's just a joke right?

If all parties intended to be involved know it's meant as a joke, yes. In fact they even have a name for such a thing, it's called a roast.

(sorry for the WatchMojo video)

 

[ExigeEvan]

If all parties intended to be involved know it's meant as a joke, yes. In fact they even have a name for such a thing, it's called a roast.

(sorry for the WatchMojo video)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, the comedy baseball bat was made of steel.

 

[Spurgy 777]

His Twitter handle is 'CountDankulaTV' and his description is 'professional **** poster'.

I'd say that's atleast some intent to be a YouTube 'personality'.

Was it when he posted the video? Sure he's decided to capitalise on all the attention he's getting since posting the video and ironically it's earned him £1,000's which is probably the opposite of what all the offended people wanted, but there is absolutely no evidence that getting lots of views and subscribers was the original intention of the video.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Was it when he posted the video? Sure he's decided to capitalise on all the attention he's getting since posting the video and ironically it's earned him £1,000's which is probably the opposite of what all the offended people wanted, but there is absolutely no evidence that getting lots of views and subscribers was the original intention of the video.

I'm pretty sure posting a video on YouTube, as opposed to WhatsApp, is some intent of getting views.

 

[Northstar]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, the comedy baseball bat was made of steel.

And again if all parties directly involved know it's not serious, what's the problem? Surely you've been on the giving and receiving ends of 🤬 talk from co-workers or friends?

 

[ExigeEvan]

And again if all parties directly involved know it's not serious, what's the problem? Surely you've been on the giving and receiving ends of 🤬 talk from co-workers or friends?

You've completely lost the context. Clearly all the parties don't agree that it's not serious in this case.

And yes I have. I'm Welsh working in a majority English ex-military workplace. Banter is part and parcel.

But I also know there are people you don't make those sort of comments too (and I don't mean because of seniority).

 

[Northstar]

You've completely lost the context. Clearly all the parties don't agree that it's not serious in this case.

Were the people who have issues with it the intended audience? In fact I have a nice story about unintended audiences causing issues.

I used to work in a grocery store and towards the end of the night when we were straightening up the shelves we were doing the usual crap talking. Unbeknownst to us someone overheard and thought they were bullying me, so they called it in (and to think we would clean it up when on the floor ). Now thankfully our boss knew how we were and didn't do more than give us a brief "doing this because I have to" talk, but it certainly could have been worse.

Than there are the Bob Saget and Jimmy Carr's of the world who have made a living making jokes far more offensive than training a pug to do a Hitler salute.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Don Rickles is probably turning over in his grave right now.

 

[Spurgy 777]

I'm pretty sure posting a video on YouTube, as opposed to WhatsApp, is some intent of getting views.

Is it? Beyond his friends that is? I for one wouldn’t use WhatsApp to show my friends, not only does having a YT channel put all the videos you want to show your friends in the same place but it’s less hassle putting a video presumably edited on a computer onto YT than it is onto WhatsApp.

But moving on from whether or not people only post videos to YouTube if they intend to get lots of views and that no one has ever publicly posted a video there with the intention of only expecting a few people to see it. Why should the only defence of a joke be that it was meant for a specific person? Surely showing that it was intended as a joke should be the only defence needed, whether it was meant to be shown to a handful of people or millions.

 

[Famine]

Inserting the word 'accesible' doesn't make a difference.

Actually it does. A public place is legally distinct from a publicly accessible place; the latter is privately owned.

For example, the road is a public place. An off-road car park in a retail park is a publicly accessible place - while it qualifies as private land, the public have reasonable expectation of access. There are even differences in the application of the Road Traffic Act between the two. Your vehicle may be clamped on the public road, but not in a publicly accessible car park. You may be charged with dangerous or careless driving if you drift on the public road, but if you do so in a car park it's a public order offence (section 59 of the police reform act 2002). Guess what you can be charged with if you drive against one-way arrows and no entry signs in a publicly accessible car park? Yep, nothing at all.

They are legally separate entities.


However, you're still arguing the point of the location of the material, which leaves this question unanswered:

So his conviction is for using YouTube? Hate speech isn't hate speech if it's on WhatsApp? Sounds a bit dim and archaic.

What else is a crime in public, but not on WhatsApp?

As is this one:

What harm, to whom, where and when?

A conviction is not evidence of harm coming to anyone; other offences that may result in criminal prosecution and conviction (and imprisonment) include anything classed as "intent" (to supply drugs, to commit harm, to commit sexual activity with a minor), known as inchoate offences, or assisting someone else who would be convicted of any offence either before or after (or in preparation of) an offence or an inchoate offence.


Saying "gas the Jews" to a dog, videoing it and uploading it to a video sharing service does not, as far as I can determine, cause any harm, nor any incitement of harm.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Why should the only defence of a joke be that it was meant for a specific person?

You're repeatedly losing the context here and disappearing down rabbit holes.

His defence.

Ross Brown, defending, said Meechan had only intended the video to be seen by a small group of friends and to annoy his girlfriend.

The revisions also clarified that criminal prosecutions were "unlikely":

• when the author of the message had "expressed genuine remorse";
• when "swift and effective action ... to remove the communication" was taken; or
• when messages were not intended for a wide audience.

He didn't plead guilty, he didn't remove the video and so within the guidelines it was his only mitigation.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Actually it does. A public place is legally distinct from a publicly accessible place; the latter is privately owned.

Obviously But we're not talking traffic offences.

If I carry an offensive weapon on the street it's a criminal offence. If I carry an offensive weapon in a pub it's the same offence.

A conviction is not evidence of harm coming to anyone; other offences that may result in criminal prosecution and conviction (and imprisonment) include anything classed as "intent" (to supply drugs, to commit harm, to commit sexual activity with a minor), known as inchoate offences, or assisting someone else who would be convicted of any offence either before or after (or in preparation of) an offence or an inchoate offence.

Except in this instance the charge was that he caused harm and that was upheld by evidence in court.

 

[Spurgy 777]

You're repeatedly losing the context here and disappearing down rabbit holes.

I am? That's the first time I've said something not relevant to his specific defence so no idea how that counts as repeatedly.

My point is that you've not only failed to prove his intent to have his video seen by a large number of people, and plenty of people post videos on YT just to show a small number of people not caring if anyone else sees it or not, (and just the fact that the guidelines are so vague and subjective that they say "wide audience" is enough to irritate me, but anyway),but as @Famine pointed out, you also haven't proved that it even caused any harm to anyone which throws out the need to have to use any of those defenses at all.